Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[JOL]

Good evening!

I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church wear skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?

I have also found some interesting articles on this topic, one from Fatima and one in regard to Padre Pio.

God bless,
JOL

 

[redrosetea]

I don’t think there is a schism just a bunch of bossy boots think they have the right to choose for other people…i listen to the Holy Father and not to them

I don’t care what they say or what they think… I am a grown woman and I will decide for myself, unless the Holy Father speaks on the matter, and as far as I can tell he doesn’t care

 

[4everjustjesus]

Good evening!

I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church wear skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?

I have also found some interesting articles on this topic, one from Fatima and one in regard to Padre Pio.

God bless,
JOL

You know, sometimes I wish Jesus would just come and say what he thinks about pants! The discussions about them often make me crazy… personally, I don’t consider them immodest, as long as they are not way too tight. I think one of the reasons that it was so “bad” then is that it caused men to sin. Men in our day and age have gotten used to pants, and seeing a woman wearing pants shouldn’t really have an effect on them. But anyway, I would check with someone more qualified before taking a total stand on it.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

I, too, am distressed by folks who point to Scripture to say the wearing of pants by women is sinful. Alright, I believe that same scripture also says men are supposed to dress as men.

Now, consider when it was written. Pray tell, was Jesus wearing pants? Did the Apostles wear pants? How about monks, including Padre Pio? How about the Pope? What about Scotsmen? What about all the men in the East who wore robes long after men in the West started wearing pantaloons?

Jesus wore robes. Does make Him a woman? No, I don’t think so.

I wish folks would look at what that scripture actually means. I believe it means that one should not try to mascarade as a person of the opposite sex.

Jesus had long hair. So? Does that mean He was trying to be a woman? I don’t think so. My hair is relatively short. Does that mean I am trying to be a man? Certainly not!

As long as a man or a woman dresses modestly, and is not trying to mascarade as the opposite sex, I don’t believe God has a problem with it.

 

[ac_claire]

Good evening!

I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church wear skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?

I have also found some interesting articles on this topic, one from Fatima and one in regard to Padre Pio.

Women wearing pants isn’t really a matter of doctrine or schism. It’s just that skirts are, generally speaking, more modest on women than pants. Modesty is still a treasured virtue in the Church, some groups cleave to it more than others. But the wearing of skirts doesn’t mean a person is a schismatic traditionalist, etc., etc. It’s more of a cultural difference at this point.

 

[njmama]

To say that skirts or dresses are more modest than pants is obviously not true in all cases. And like the others said, I don’t think it is a cause of schism though maybe it is the catalyst for some heated debate. Modesty is a very culture-specific thing, for one.

While I agree with the “let’s not judge each other” sentiment to some extent, I think we should honor those who are extra careful about being modest. Monks, nuns, and priests after all are required to be super careful in their dress so as not to be immodest or draw undue attention-- shouldn’t this be the higher calling for us all? I am a 25 year old jean wearing, tank top loving woman but I have to take my hat off to those men and women that go above and beyond to keep modest. They shouldn’t judge those who don’t but they warrant some respect.

 

[tcraig]

As Catholics, we do not go by the Bible alone to make our decisions on what is right or wrong. Instead we have the Holy Father and the Magisterium to guide us.

If it was necessary for Catholic women to wear dresses/skirts only in order to dress modestly, then the Church would have a document that states this. Instead, the Catechism acknowledges that the forms of modesty taken can vary by culture.

It is helpful to remember that our Catholic faith is universal, and not confined to Western Europeans. In many cultures men and women wear clothing that is actually quite similar, which includes loose trousers on both sexes.

And while the writings of saints can be sources of inspiration and a catalyst for us to grow in holiness, we must remember that not everything they have written or recorded is definitive Church teaching.

 

[redrosetea]

I have a little story to tell about wearing dresses…Back in the 1970’s I can recall a women who was around 40 ,coming into church with what I think were her children in tow

She was wearing a tennis dress…Fr was at the lectern giving his homily and he never raised his eys nor changed to tone of his voice…He was giving the homily and had noted this woman coming in to church

He quietly said do you try to have the shortest dress in town, when he was ticking off things we shouldn’t be doing

A dress is no more modest than slacks and can be very much more revealing

 

[ac_claire]

I did say “generally.” Doesn’t mean women wearing pants is inherently immodest, just that skirts are inherenty more modest, because they (generally!) cover more. Simple as that. That’s all.

Obviously it’s possible for a skirt-like piece of clothing to be immodest (tight miniskirts?) but we’re talking reasonable and general norms here. If your actual choices are a pair of pants and a revealing tennis dress, the more modest choice is obvious. Things like this are nice reminders but they aren’t the exception that disporves the rule unless there are a nation of women out there who’s *only two clothing choices *are a tight minidress and a pair of pants. That’s not really a common dilemma.

 

[Liraco]

The key word is RESPECT.

If you dress in a manner that’s respectful for being in the house of the Lord (meaning you don’t have an attitude of “I’ll wear whatever I feel like it”) then it doesn’t matter if it’s pants or skirts. It should be common sense that a really short skirt or really tight pants isn’t exactly the modest nor very respectful.

As long as your attitude in how you dress is one of humility and modesty, then you shouldn’t really have to worry. Just taking a look in the mirror should be enough for you to tell if you’re wearing something you shouldn’t (and this goes for other pieces of clothing, like T-shirts with skulls which I certainly would never consciously wear on a Sunday).

If however you go in there with a top with a neckline down to the belly button and some micro-skirt that looks more like a belt and think there’s NOTHING wrong with your attire… THEN we have a real problem.

 

[Shin]

Good evening!

I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church wear skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?

I have also found some interesting articles on this topic, one from Fatima and one in regard to Padre Pio.

God bless,
JOL

I like the links you posted a great deal. Yes, there is a difference between people on this matter. . . I think you already know which way to go however.

The path to take is the path of the few, not the many.

There are many people who are deceived by the culture of the world and bring it with them into the Church, high and low. That is how it always is, the spirit of each age has its influence, but when we look to the standards of all time, we find how we are called to be more modest, more humble, more reserved, more careful – to do the inconvenient, even the difficult, the cross bearing – to be of the few.

And that this is what gains us the graces we need to be part of the few above, instead of the many below. We must help our neighbors to realize this as charitably as we may, and to make certain the harm of bad practices is known too, to those who can see it. God help them.

‘The friends of Christ love all truly but are not themselves loved by all; the friends of the world neither love all nor are loved by all. The friends of Christ persevere in love to the end; the friends of the world persevere only until they fall out with each other over some worldly thing. ‘A faithful friend is a strong defense’ (Ecclus. 6:14); for when things are going well with you, he is a good counselor and a sympathetic collaborator, while when things are going badly, he is the truest of helpers and a most compassionate supporter.’

St. Maximos the Confessor

‘Holiness is something so great and precious that one cannot pay too much for it.’

St. Claude de la Colombiere

 

[TMC]

Good evening!

I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church wear skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?

I have also found some interesting articles on this topic, one from Fatima and one in regard to Padre Pio.

God bless,
JOL

Hardly a schism, in fact outside of a very conservative forum like this one, you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of Catholics that believe there is anything wrong with pants.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I don’t think there is a schism just a bunch of bossy boots think they have the right to choose for other people…i listen to the Holy Father and not to them

I don’t care what they say or what they think… I am a grown woman and I will decide for myself, unless the Holy Father speaks on the matter, and as far as I can tell he doesn’t care

Actually I believe the last Pope to speak of specific guidelines was Pope Pius XII and no Pope has since altered the requirements. So the Pope has spoken - maybe it’s just that you don’t care to listen.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

The thing with females in pants is that it’s more than just dress… there is a mindset to it. It alters your self perception. My wife decided to forego wearing pants and dresses solely in feminie attire and she has admitted that it alters a woman’s psychology about herself and the treatment you receive from others. Interestingly enough Colleen Hammond’s book, Dressing with Dignity, speaks of this as well.

Kind of funny how we can tell which restroom to go in by the symbol on the wall:

Figure with long hair and skirt - Female
Figure with short hair and pants - Male

Too bad society pays no heed to the symbology other than to figure out which bathroom to use.

 

[JOL]

Actually I believe the last Pope to speak of specific guidelines was Pope Pius XII and no Pope has since altered the requirements. So the Pope has spoken - maybe it’s just that you don’t care to listen.

Do you have a link or something to what Pope Pius XII has laid out?

 

[JOL]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. I don’t know. I don’t condemn anyone, so please don’t misunderstand. But, women always dressed differently, dresses/long skirts and heads covered until the early 1900’s. Why is that? What changed? Has the change been for the better or for the worse? Why does this topic offend some?

I think this is certainly something to be researched with an open heart.

 

[JOL]

To say that skirts or dresses are more modest than pants is obviously not true in all cases.

I should have been more specific. When I said “skirts,” I meant long skirts. It is obvious that a short or mini-skirt would be less modest than pants. I would hope though that Christians wouldn’t wear a mini-skirt to begin with. Another thing is long skirts with big slits, another no-no. So, when I say “skirt,” I would be referring to long modest skirts (little or no slit).

God bless

 

[JOL]

I like the links you posted a great deal. Yes, there is a difference between people on this matter. . . I think you already know which way to go however.

The path to take is the path of the few, not the many.

There are many people who are deceived by the culture of the world and bring it with them into the Church, high and low. That is how it always is, the spirit of each age has its influence, but when we look to the standards of all time, we find how we are called to be more modest, more humble, more reserved, more careful – to do the inconvenient, even the difficult, the cross bearing – to be of the few.

And that this is what gains us the graces we need to be part of the few above, instead of the many below. We must help our neighbors to realize this as charitably as we may, and to make certain the harm of bad practices is known too, to those who can see it. God help them.

‘The friends of Christ love all truly but are not themselves loved by all; the friends of the world neither love all nor are loved by all. The friends of Christ persevere in love to the end; the friends of the world persevere only until they fall out with each other over some worldly thing. ‘A faithful friend is a strong defense’ (Ecclus. 6:14); for when things are going well with you, he is a good counselor and a sympathetic collaborator, while when things are going badly, he is the truest of helpers and a most compassionate supporter.’

St. Maximos the Confessor

‘Holiness is something so great and precious that one cannot pay too much for it.’

St. Claude de la Colombiere

Shin,

Thank you and God bless you for your comments, they help a great deal.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Do you have a link or something to what Pope Pius XII has laid out?

Sorry, it was actually under the Pontificate of Pius XI, although Pius XII did speak of the neccessity to avoid following fashion.

The text below is from cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html (I can’t vouch for the rest of the website since it appears to be down.)

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE CHURCH APPROVES? HAS SHE GIVEN SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN DRESS?

Yes! The Church has issued specific standards. But they were almost completely ignored by our liberal press, so that we were unable to fully establish their authenticity until 1965, more than 35 years after their publication. We are indebted to Father Jesus M. Cavanna, C.M. (of the Philippino College in Rome) for discovering them in the Bulletin of the Roman Clergy, issue of October 1928. Father Cavanna graciously sent us a translation of the document containing the standards of modesty (dated Sept. 24, 1928), which we proceeded to publish. The discovery of this “missing link” enables us now to publish a fully authenticated history of the Roman Standards. We give here only the bare essentials.

On August 15, 1928, Pope Pius XI, in the consistorial chamber, “denounced once again the danger (of immodest dress) which, by its seductive fascination, threatens so many unwary souls.”

On August 23, only eight days later, the Holy Father ordered the Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a very strongly worded letter to all the Bishops of Italy inaugurating a “Crusade Against Immodest Fashions.” The Bishops were to communicate the specific injunctions of this letter to be enforced “in all schools, academies, Sunday schools and laboratories directed by female religious,” to ensure “perfect conformity of conduct among all institutes of female religious in the diocese.”

To ensure such “conformity” Pius XI, on September 24, 1928, only one month later, ordered the Sacred Congregation of Religious to issue another letter on the “Crusade against Immodest Fashions.” It was in this letter that the following standards were prescribed:

"We recall that a dress cannot be called modest which is cut deeper than two fingers’ breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper."

 

[Ali_formerJW]

Now, consider when it was written. Pray tell, was Jesus wearing pants? Did the Apostles wear pants? How about monks, including Padre Pio? How about the Pope? What about Scotsmen? What about all the men in the East who wore robes long after men in the West started wearing pantaloons?

Jesus wore robes. Does make Him a woman? No, I don’t think so.

Jesus had long hair. So? Does that mean He was trying to be a woman?

THANK YOU!! {sorry for yelling} LOL, but it reminds me of the sola scriptura people who take things out of context or ignore parts of the Bible that don’t fit in with their belief system. You can’t ignore Jesus